Woohoo! Finally a definition that makes me a 'pro'! I am more aware of the shot than the harm to the camera. I have proven time and again that the cameras can take it. I treat my cameras as tools not jewels.
Maybe I would not be so cavalier if I did not have so many bodies, but this is something that I have done from the very start, when I only had one body. How else would I have taken some of the shots I did in Yosemite while in the mist of the waterfalls? I don't think I have TV beat, but my gear does show battle scars. The latest I noticed was a ding in my FA-2 viewfinder on an LX. This is the result of it being in a fanny pack along with another camera and three lenses. Cesar Panama City, Florida -- -----Original Message----- -- From: Steve Desjardins [mailto:DesJardinS@;wlu.edu] -- Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 11:03 AM -- -- Part of this is how important the image is vs. the price of -- the camera. -- I think a pro will risk the camera for the shot, whereas the amateur -- might be somewhat more protective of equipment since the image is not -- actually worth money to them. For a pro, the image could potentially -- pay for a broken camera. -- <snip> -- -- Steven Desjardins -- Department of Chemistry -- Washington and Lee University -- Lexington, VA 24450 -- (540) 458-8873 -- FAX: (540) 458-8878 -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --
